...the analyses were kicking about before then, and their "pre-history" is revealing about UK's preparations for Brexit.
This thread will take the prehistory and early history of the analyses to June 2017, before linking to a detailed post at @JackofKent.
/3

The analyses are first referred to in July 2016, in evidence taken shortly after the referendum.
By September, new Brexit secretary David Davis refers to about "50 cross-cutting sectors".
The "50-something" figure is established quite early.
/4

Davis tells a Commons committee:
"Because of the way the process is staged—data gathering at this stage, engagement at this stage, analysis later, policy design later after that, and so on—I don’t think we are going to have a problem [before A50]."
(Hmm.)
/6

The next month, another Brexit minister is again confident that they will be done pre-A50:
"We are analysing over 50 sectors...so that we can establish what we consider to be the best possible terms for departure. That, of course, will inform our negotiation once it starts."
/7

Also in October 2016, a third Brexit minister tells the Lords that the analyses are in a manageable format:
"It is an attempt to try to get this into a manageable format so that we can analyse what Brexit might mean for those particular sectors. "
/8

By early December 2016, the analyses had become "extensive", with Davis telling the Commons:
"...we are carrying out an extensive programme of sectoral analysis on the key factors that affect our negotiations with the European Union".
/9

Davis then again asserts that all the analysis will be in place before the Article 50 notification:
"This is a single-shot negotiation, so we must get it right, and we will get it right by doing the analysis first and the notification second. I will do that."
/10

Just to emphasise, in December 2016, Davis said:
"we will get it right by doing the analysis first and the notification second"
The analysis was to be complete before A50 notification.
"single-shot"
/11

The government adds text to the Commons motion on A50:
"confirms that there should be no disclosure of material that could be reasonably judged to damage the UK in any negotiations to depart from the European Union after Article 50 has been triggered".
/13

The Labour front bench nod-along with the A50 motion.
The government then uses that motion as a pretext not to disclose any information.
The government appoints itself the "reasonable judge" on disclosure.
/14